My Peer Review Process

Discuss your experience making major changes in a way that shows your critical thinking through the process. For example, you could explain what comments from peers or others helped you know what to revise and have ideas to revise, or what you gained from the revising process, or what strategies can help you revise your writing well in the

The checklist titled “Checklist for Revising and Editing”, in The Little Seagull Handbook, provided eight great tips for revision of a paper. The tips ranged from appealing to a specific audience to punctuation errors. The biggest issues I have with writing are sentence structure and punctuation and mechanics.

In some of my work before this class. I would stray away from the main topic and go into a topic that was not documented appropriately for the paper. While reflecting on whether or not I improved in this area, I believe that I have. Throughout the research paper, I stayed on topic about the issue and did not go off into a different topic or problem. I collected information that would help show the reader the whole picture. When it came to the persuasive paper I gave the appropriate research to show the reader which side of the issue I was on and the side I was trying to persuade them to

Protection provided when a nurse invokes the safe harbor include that the nurse who fills the forms in the good will should not be suspended, terminated disciplined or even discriminated against. Also, the nurse is protected for 48 hours after being advised of the PRC determination. In addition, there is safe harbor rule that has been established to prevent retaliation of nurses by their managers and shield the license of the nurse from actions by the Texas board of nurses when RN reports practices that can detrimentally affect the manner in which the nurse carries out the duties.

I have always found the peer review process to be beneficial on both ends, whether you are the writer or the reader, are being reviewed or are the reviewer. Having multiple sets of eyes proofread your paper should help more than hurt. It is your choice if you want to take the advice your peers gave. You have the option of not making any changes at all, so whether you decide to take the advice or not, it does not hurt to receive them. In Paper One, I found that peer reviewing others was a bit difficult because any comments made could be offending them. I felt that I would come off as criticizing the kind of person one is, instead of one's work since the assignment was to write about something that is personal.

Every paper, no matter how well written needs to be revised and edited as time goes on. In some ways, life is similar. We all go through changes that influence us and shape the direction we are headed. Some of these changes come from our own prerogative while others are inspired by friends and family members. I know that my worldview has gone through this revision process. Even looking back to freshman year I had many of the same ideals, same focuses on values and hard work, but over time they have come to manifest themselves in different ways. For instance, I am much more willing to share my beliefs and opinions on controversial issues. This developed as I came to realize my ideas are worth arguing for and I gained a knowledge of

In The Everyday Writer, I strongly believed that chapter 10 “Reviewing & Revising” was most helpful as I could relate to some of its statements. I believed that by reviewing my work, I’m bound to discover mistakes. By doing so, I could make minor adjustment to my work. However, sometimes looking over my own work isn’t enough so, that’s where a peer reviewer comes in. A peer reviewer is someone who challenges your work. By doing so, they give me a strong sense of doubt as I tend to overlook certain areas yet, the peer reviewer that I came across didn’t really help.

Typically, when most people think about the writing process they think of terms such as a ‘thesis statement,’ developing an outline, body paragraphs, conclusion; it’s imperative to view writing this way. We have only been taught THIS way of writing almost directly after we learned how to spell words—you decide what to write about, usually specified in the thesis statement, then you write a series of paragraphs entailing how you came to this conclusion. Finally, you conclude your paper by restating exactly what it was you spent an entire essay writing about. And most people will go their entire lives believing that is the formula for an effective, well thought-out work of literature. But how often do we go back and read through our writing and completely resent how amateur and forced it sounds? This is usually a direct result of a lack of revision within a work. Defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a change or a set of changes that corrects or improves something” and “a new version of something that has been corrected or changed,” Revision is not a common word we think of when writing—this raises a serious question: how should you revise? In response to this to this, research was conducted to find a general view as to the significance of revision within various individual’s writing processes. These results, along with research from several academic articles provide a clear description as to where revision could be

After reading the reviews and going over my conversation paper, I want to add a ton more detail and explaination to most of my paper. I will also try to make the conversation parts bolder. When I wrote the paper I didn't have the experience I do now, so I can see alot of places that should be edited.

Throughout the revision process, I had the opportunity to discover my voice as a writer and engage in the conversation that is academic writing. In my final paper, I tried to reinforce the idea of a roadmap to guide my reader along my thought process. During my Embedded Writing Consultant appointment, I walked through the guidelines of a roadmap with Amarachi, and she emphasized the importance of a roadmap in reorganizing my paper. I realized that I could clearly articulate what I wanted to state by explaining it to her out loud, but when I translated such ideas to my paper, the main point oftentimes became lost. You mentioned something similar in your feedback, as many of the points I made did not connect to my central claim. Recognizing that I needed to emphasize my plan and then carry it out, I rewrote my paper with this in mind.

Judicial elections, a process virtually unheard of in any other modern-day democracy, is the most popular method of selecting judges in the United States. The elections are either partisan, requiring the candidates to secure an endorsement by a political party; non-partisan, requiring no political endorsements for the candidates; or retention, requiring appointed judges to face reelection to retain their seats after some time on the bench. Judicial elections were established in the nineteenth century to balance public accountability and political independence of the judges. And, with the settlement of most large-scale controversies ranging from: gun control to desegregation inside courthouses, the process of selecting judges

Peer review is the assessment of nursing services, the quality of patient care provided by nurses, the benefits of a complaint concerning a nurse or a nursing care, and a purpose regarding a complaint. The nursing review committee is a process in which fact finding, analysis and study of events by nurses in a climate of mutual problem solving focused on obtaining all relevant information about an event. Section 303.0015(c) requires that nursing peer review committee that conducts a peer review involves professional nursing must have two thirds of its members as RN and may have only RN’s as voting members.

Peer review is a long process. Therefore, submitting to an appropriate journal and following the guidelines of that journal would save a lot of time. One should submit to one journal at a time. This would save us from embarrassment of withdrawing later. All the sections should be meticulously written and should reflect what it is meant to. References should be written with great care and only one style should be used at a time. Language should be simple and the scientific content should be obvious. One should try to minimize common errors such that the peer reviewer accepts the manuscript as such or with

Finally, regarding my friend Clancy’s recommendation in his peer review, I have not reached other Asian fan-bases such as Japanese, South Korean or Chinese due to the lack of subtitles in these languages. I really appreciated this suggestion as those other Asians rather than Vietnamese might also lack of English proficiency to understand my content. This is what I can improve after I upload my videos to Youtube as I can include optional subtitles in different languages for viewers to choose, probably with the help of my foreign

As advancements are made in science and technology that relates to the care of patients, it is critical for nurses to be aware of the treatments that have been proven to be evidence-based. Systematic research reviews (SRR) are considered to have the highest ranking or level of evidence falling under level 1 evidence for reliability, validity, and least amount of error (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2015, p.607). The aim of this paper is to critique the chosen SRR related to core temperature obtainment in children, relevance of the research problem to nursing practice, rigor of the research found in the SRR to include levels of evidence and designs of included studies, the clarity of findings, summarized findings in the SRR, and the implications for practice.